Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mark Gordon <mark.gt@×××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:05:58
Message-Id: 20030425010552.4a1c9a99.mark.gt@flash-gordon.me.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh by Grant Goodyear
On 24 Apr 2003 12:48:20 -0400
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote:

> Many of these bugs have already been fixed. > > Reading through bug 18918, Azarah's comments seem perfectly reasonable > to me, so I think the author of that message was a bit harsh. > Lindstrom's last comment on that bug does seem fairly clear, but I'm > wondering if his proposed fix will break /etc/profile for the zsh (and > any other fancy *sh that might exist that I don't know anything > about)? I do agree that we should try to prevent our /etc/profile from > breaking people's prompts, but I don't want people to lose the > distinctive Gentoo eye-candy, either.
<snip> I hit the issue of bash being a superset of sh myself a couple of months ago when writing scripts to run on SCO, AIX & Linux. I would suggest that the either one has to have separate tests for bash & and other /bin/sh or /etc/profile should stick to a POSIX compliant value and as was suggested /etc/bashrc can set something fancier. If someone can suggest which is the most compliant, least extended sh implementation I would be happy to have that installed on one of my boxes for testing. -- Mark Gordon Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer Currently looking for a new job commutable from Slough, Berks, U.K. Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it. -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list